Obama promotes education practices Sidwell Friends wouldn't dream of adopting.

[Karmadillo]

This is a very unrealistic article. If we give the masses a Sidwell Friends education, how can we pay for our wars and our bankster bailouts? A little realism would go a long way towards silencing Our President's critics.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/dc-schools/the-irony-of-obamas-sidwell-re.html

There is some irony behind President Obama's comment that his daughters could not get as fine an academic experience in a D.C. public school as they do at private Sidwell Friends School: His education policies promote some practices that Sidwell wouldn't dream of adopting.

Obama sparked a heated debate when he said during an interview with NBC's Matt Lauer that schools in the D.C. public system were making progress but were not as good as Sidwell.

My colleague, Jay Mathews, wrote on his Class Struggle blog that Obama was wrong. Jay said that there are some D.C. schools that are “just as good in every important way,” and the important ways he cites are setting high standards and having excellent teachers.

<edit>

At Sidwell, a Quaker school, teachers don’t spend days drilling kids to pass standardized tests, and they aren’t evaluated by student test scores. Sidwell has small classes, a wide range of curricular and extracurricular options, tremendous facilities on two big campuses, etc. etc.

The irony is that Obama’s own education policies give standardized testing a central place in public education, though he chose a school for his children that wouldn't see that as a sound way to run an academic program.

more...

[riderinthestorm]

1. This blog post isn't unrealistic at all. More from the article:

"Teachers get blamed when D.C. school kids do poorly on their tests. When Obama’s daughter Malia came home from school with a 73 percent on a science test, Obama didn’t blame the teacher. He said in a speech last year that he simply told Malia to work harder.But his main education initiative for public schools to date, Race to the Top, is focused on common standards, the expansion of charter schools, teacher assessment through performance, data systems and standardized tests.

It doesn’t have much to say about parental involvement, early childhood education, afterschool programs, kids’ health and psychological needs -- all of the things that a student at Sidwell could expect to get.

Of course, comparing one of the world’s finest schools to other schools doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

But neither do policies that scapegoat teachers, make standardized test scores all-important, and embrace market-driven reforms as appropriate for a public school system, which is the country's most important civic institution. You'd think we'd treat it better."



I thought her blog post was extremely informative and spot on. Obama has brought Sidwell Friends into the discussion. Raised it in the context of his expectations, his children's attendance in school, the current debate about public schools... its all fair game as far as I'm concerned.

[elleng]

2. Operative point here is:

'there are SOME D.C. schools that are “just as good in every important way."' One or two, that's about it.

[scheming daemons]

3. Obama's kids are at Sidwell strictly because of Secret Service concerns

Sidwell is equipped to deal with them, most other schools are not.


It isn't because Obama doesn't want them in public schools.

[EFerrari]

4. So, why is Sidwell equipped to deal with them and not other schools?

[scheming daemons]

5. Because of changes the school made to accomodate Chelsea Clinton in the '90s

It's been well-documented.

Google it.

[EFerrari]

6. So, how did those changes come about?

I suspect someone threw some money at the problem.

[scheming daemons]

8. Sidwell very badly wanted to win the "Chelsea sweepstakes" when Bill and Hillary moved to town

They made their pitch... the Secret Service told them what needed to be done... and Sidwell spent the money to do it.

It was worth the investment 10 times over, as it "put Sidwell on the map".

[Karmadillo]

18. Sidwell Friends wasn't on the map when Theodore Roosevelt & Richard Nixon sent their

children there?

[CTyankee]

31. Thank you! I wish people would stop saying that "throwing money at the problem"

won't help. On Morning Joe today, that meme got repeated and Mika B. just nodded her agreement. Well, her dad and mom sure threw a bunch of money at the Madiera School in Fairfax County VA for her college prepping.

It infuriates me to hear rich people who send their kids to VERY ritzy schools, say this about everybody else. I know better...

[QC]

34. That is a right wing figure of speech that has become very popular here of late.

Come to think of it, a lot of right wing figures of speech have entered into common usage here.

[dsc]

7. because Sidwell is private property from which the press

and others can be banned. Public schools are not. The press and protestors can legally camp out right outside a schools entrance since the school, the street, and the sidewalk are all private property. Conversely, Sidwell Friends can ban anyone they wish to ban from their property at a whim. That is the main difference. I would imagine they also have some added security measures that cost money but by far the most important security aspect is the ability to ban people.

[EFerrari]

9. So, Obama's $30K+ a year is buying his girls' security as well as

their liberal education.

I'm beginning to think that "throwing money" at schools may not be such a bad idea.

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. It's a novel concept, that's for sure

[chimpymustgo]

27. Public schools are protected as well. You can't just take a camera onto school grounds without

permission. And there are public schools in DC as good as Sidwell and St. Albans and National Cathedral - several elementary and middle schools. The Obamas made a CHOICE. And his saying DC schools aren't good enough for his girls is DISGRACEFUL. How do you think that makes the thousands of kids in public schools feel? The man is truly tone deaf.

[Karmadillo]

10. You mean the Secret Service hated Amy Carter?

nt

[dsc]

14. Amy going to public school was President Carter's decision

as is the Obama children going to Sidwell. I don't begrudge Obama doing that frankly. Carter was making a point not to have an imperial Presidency. Obama is the first black President and thus a huge security concern. I am angry that he compared Sidwell to the DC schools without noting the huge differences in resources and power but I don't have a problem with him having chosen a private school for his children.

[Karmadillo]

21. You make some good points, but I would begrudge his decision less if,

as the article points out, he wasn't attempting to continue a bipartisan policy of promoting a form of education for the masses that he clearly doesn't find suitable for his own children.

[GreenArrow]

17. So why didn't he send his kids to good buddy

Arne Duncan's public schools in Chicago? Instead they went to private Chicago Lab School, which also happens to be the school that Arne Duncan attended

Of course Obama doesn't want them in public schools; if he did, they'd be there, and they'd have been there. I don't begrudge him his choice a bit, since, as the article points out, schools like Sidwell and the Lab school wouldn't touch the kind of test centric education policy that Duncan and Obama are pushing with a 10-foot pole.

[Obamanaut]

26. Were there not similar concerns when Amy Carter was in school? If

Obama really wanted the kids in public school, they would be in public school.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. He should never have brought this up

[EFerrari]

13. Afaik, he didn't bring it up. Someone in the audience did.

The problem is, he'd just made the "throwing money at the problem" statement. That's what he never should have done.

When did DEMOCRATS begin to call funding education "throwing money"? I thought that's what Republians said as a way to bash our social safety net.

[suffragette]

22. Exactly, what happened to "fund appropriately"

Though I guess that would be challenging to use regarding the new, competitive approach of awarding schools money since that approach is clearly based on funding according to need rather than to "who wins" the contest.

[Jakes Progress]

15. The elite don't want your children

to have the same education that their children have. Standardized tests, drills, worksheets, and narrow curriculum, and teachers with no training for your children. Small classes, creative instruction, experienced teachers, exposure to a wide range of subjects and knowledge, individualized attention, and a sense of privilege for their children. How else to huddle your children into their places twenty years from now.

[Karmadillo]

16. There's a policy leaders in both parties can get behind.

nt

[QC]

19. Drill 'n Regurgitate "teaching" is strictly for the small people.

No way does the ruling class want their children's educations to be limited to how best to choose A, B, C, or D. They could not rule the world with such limited skills as that.

[GreenArrow]

20. Yeah, but it's good enough for the proles. n/t

.

[QC]

32. Especially when most jobs above the retail and fast food level are being exported.

Who needs an educated workforce for a gutted economy?

[Tatiana]

23. Lets be honest, most private elementary schools do not promote high stakes testing.

They know that with a broad curriculum emphasizing critical thinking skills as well as small class sizes, students will be successful. My child is enrolled in a private school for this very reason (helped along by the poor administration in our local middle school). Coincidentally, the school is staffed by teachers who used to work for the public school system. The teachers are willing to take less pay in exchange for not having to deal with discipline and other issues (narrowing curriculum, more time spent teaching to tests, etc.) instead of doing what they love and they are fantastic. Of course they were fantastic when they worked for the public schools as well, only they were tired of the teacher bashing and administrative harrassment.

My daughter will return to a public university lab school next year (thank goodness) that is exempt from state testing with the exception of the usual PSAE/ACT/SAT college entrance exams.

Seems to me like it wouldn't be a bad idea to abandon the charter idea and just add some more public university lab schools. They give students access to large libraries, top-notch instructional support from university professors, foster leadership skills in the form of student-led civic and service learning projects... Over 100 students at the school my daughter will attend organized an anti-war protest. These kids also know what civil liberties are, what the FISA court is, and in their spare time they build robots. The kids are clearly learning, even in the absence of high-stakes testing (ISAT, in Illinois). We should be working out more public non-profit partnerships to deliver world-class opportunities to our children.

[Greyhound]

He attended an elite private school as did all of the money behind this scheme.

There is no mystery in how to educate kids well, the parasites have been providing the best education in the world to their spawn for well over a hundred years here.

And or course not one of these schools would dream of subjecting their students to this trauma, it is antithetical to education.
:kick: & R

[Greyhound]

24. He attended an elite private school as did all of the money behind this scheme.

There is no mystery in how to educate kids well, the parasites have been providing the best education in the world to their spawn for well over a hundred years here.

And or course not one of these schools would dream of subjecting their students to this trauma, it is antithetical to education.
:kick: & R

[quaker bill]

25. A few things

Friends schools chart their own course, and always have. They generally do not spare expense to get very talented staff and leadership. They are not "reformed" by politicians and educational program marketing lobbyists every two or three years, so the kids benefit from a consistent approach, and funds are not wasted in the constant "reform" cycle getting new materials and training every couple of years. Friends spend money on small class size and close interaction between student and teacher and save money and time by passing up on high stakes testing or whatever is the latest trend.

A further bit, most Friends Schools are pricey and if you have the money, you are expected pay for this. They also nearly all have very substantial endowments that provide assistance for those who truly cannot pay. Many Friends Meetings are similarly endowed and will also provide scholarship assistance, particularly in the northeast where Friends Meetings may have been in the same unadorned building for nearly 300 years. It is entirely possible that one might be sitting on the same wooden bench...

We do not spend our funds on alot of things, but schools are an exception.

[blindpig]

28. Something to keep in mind....

Education is just one, and not necessarily primary, reason for sending one's children to private school. The social aspect is at least just as important, making connections, developing the 'proper' social circles, the embryonic old boy network. This is why many send their children to such schools. Around here the premiere private school does not have better SAT scores than the flagship public school, yet those striving for social advancement will send their children to the private school for the shoulders their children will rub, often at great financial sacrifice. It is largely about class.

[xchrom]

29. recommend

[LWolf]

30. The nation should be calling on Obama to reform schools by giving

every student in America the same advantages as the school he chose for his daughters.

[sonomak]

33. Bingo